On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant <travis@continuum.io>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to
> >> include the Datetime work in the release against David's own best
> judgement.
> >> The result was a delay of several months until Ralf could get up to
> speed
> >> and get 1.4.1 out. Let us also note that poly1d is actually not the
> same as
> >> Matlab poly1d.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is not accurate, Charles. Please stop trying to dredge up old
> >> history you don't know the full story about and are trying to create an
> >> alternate reality about. It doesn't help anything and is quite
> poisonous
> >> to this mailing list.
> >
> >
> > I didn't start the discussion of 1.4, nor did I raise the issue at the
> time
> > as I didn't think it would be productive. We moved forward. But in any
> case,
> > I asked David at the time why the datetime stuff got included. I'd
> welcome
> > your version if you care to offer it. That would be more useful than
> > accusing me of creating an alternative reality and would clear the air.
> >
> >
> > The datetime stuff got included because it is a very useful and important
> > feature for multiple users. It still needed work, but it was in a state
> > where it could be tried. It did require breaking ABI compatibility in
> the
> > state it was in. My approach was to break ABI compatibility and move
> > forward (there were other things we could do at the time that are still
> > needed in the code base that will break ABI compatibility in the future).
> > David didn't want to break ABI compatibility and so tried to satisfy two
> > competing desires in a way that did not ultimately work. These things
> > happen. We all get to share responsibility for the outcome.
>> I think Chuck alludes to the fact that I was rather reserved about
> merging datetime before *anyone* knew about breaking the ABI.
Exactly.
> I don't
> feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed
> more strongly about datetime being included),
I think you left out a 'not'. I don't mean to imply that you were in anyway
the blame. And you have been pretty adamant about not allowing late merges
of large bits of code since then. It falls in the lessons learned category.
but I am also not
> interested in making a big deal out of it, certainly not two years
> after the fact. I am merely point this out so that you realize that
> you may both have a different view that could be seen as valid
> depending on what you are willing to highlight.
>> I suggest that Chuck and you take this off-list,
>
I don't think there is much more to say, although I would suggest Travis be
more careful about criticising previous work, ala 'gratuitous', 'not
listening', etc. We got 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 out without any help from
him, and I think we did a pretty damn good job of working with the
community and improving the code in the process.
Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20120626/6ef0e29e/attachment.html